RG3 and Skins impressive loss to the Bears

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
RG3 and Skins impressive loss to the Bears

I fell asleep around 6pm last night and woke up at the beginning of the 2nd quarter, and spent that quarter and halftime trying to get this dino of a computer to stream a radio broadcast so I could listen, I am out of the Skins market. So by the time the 3rd quarter began with a runback touchdown by the Bears, the score was 27-10. I listened for most of that quarter but gave up. Woke up in the morning to find out we came close it with the game ending 33-31.

Now admittedly some would argue, these were back ups in the second half. Sure, but depth is something the Skins have not had consistently over the years. This does say to me, that we will have a much more solid team in regular season.

My only fear is that RG will be relied on too much like Vic is acting more like a running back than a QB. IF IF IF IF IF we can build a strong offensive line, I can see the Skins doing much better this year. We have great running backs and RG seems to be the best QB we have had in recent years.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 If you have the NFL

 If you have the NFL network on cable, you'd have the game.  

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: If you have

Sapient wrote:

 If you have the NFL network on cable, you'd have the game.  

Why would I pay for the extended package of cable, when I only want one channel? I only watch maybe 4 or five regular channels on a daily basis. My problem wasn't hating only being able to listen. My problem was that I didn't plan in advance. If I had started looking for a station at 7pm by the time the game had started I would have worked out all the kinks. I don't mind merely listening to the game.

Considering all the repetition of channels both on cable and dish, plus buying tons of channels you don't give a rats ass about just to get one, it is not worth it to me. If I am that desperate to want to watch a game, I can go to a bar with all the games.

And please tell me why in the world I would ever take advice from an Eagles fan?(Note to self: shut up Brian37, it's not nice to bite the hand that provides you an oasis)

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Considering

Brian37 wrote:

Considering all the repetition of channels both on cable and dish, plus buying tons of channels you don't give a rats ass about just to get one, it is not worth it to me. If I am that desperate to want to watch a game, I can go to a bar with all the games.

 

That's my problem with cable TV - I want to watch maybe 4 or 5 channels, some of which are not on basic cable.  Cafe style is what I want, pick the channels you like and only pay for them - but that is against the law. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Brian37

cj wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Considering all the repetition of channels both on cable and dish, plus buying tons of channels you don't give a rats ass about just to get one, it is not worth it to me. If I am that desperate to want to watch a game, I can go to a bar with all the games.

 

That's my problem with cable TV - I want to watch maybe 4 or 5 channels, some of which are not on basic cable.  Cafe style is what I want, pick the channels you like and only pay for them - but that is against the law. 

 

As long as our current climate of corporate greed is about maximizing profits, instead of a healthy economy which should be based on customer service, the fact that I have 200 channels on my basic, which is over priced no matter what, the idiots who dream up these "bundles" don't understand that if they make it about us, instead of figuring out how to pick our pockets, they would probably make more money.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4435
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:cj

Brian37 wrote:

cj wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Considering all the repetition of channels both on cable and dish, plus buying tons of channels you don't give a rats ass about just to get one, it is not worth it to me. If I am that desperate to want to watch a game, I can go to a bar with all the games.

 

That's my problem with cable TV - I want to watch maybe 4 or 5 channels, some of which are not on basic cable.  Cafe style is what I want, pick the channels you like and only pay for them - but that is against the law. 

 

As long as our current climate of corporate greed is about maximizing profits, instead of a healthy economy which should be based on customer service, the fact that I have 200 channels on my basic, which is over priced no matter what, the idiots who dream up these "bundles" don't understand that if they make it about us, instead of figuring out how to pick our pockets, they would probably make more money.

 

Without bundling MSNBC and CNN probably wouldn't exist anymore.

Also, you would probably find that a cable company offering ala carte pricing would charge much higher rates for popular channels, while unpopular channels would be extremely cheap. No doubt the NFL network would be one of the most expensive channels, which by the time you pay for that and your local channels you would probably be paying basic cable pricing anyway. The only people who would really benefit would be people who solely watch unpopular channels.

Besides, I thought you were a good communist, how can you be against the poor channels being propped up by the rich channels? Which is essentially what bundling does. Without bundling there would certainly be many channels that would no longer be financially viable and would be dropped. Why, the cable tv world would become NO RULES, ANARCHY! SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST!!! AHHHHH!

 

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Without

Beyond Saving wrote:

Without bundling MSNBC and CNN probably wouldn't exist anymore.

Also, you would probably find that a cable company offering ala carte pricing would charge much higher rates for popular channels, while unpopular channels would be extremely cheap. No doubt the NFL network would be one of the most expensive channels, which by the time you pay for that and your local channels you would probably be paying basic cable pricing anyway. The only people who would really benefit would be people who solely watch unpopular channels.

Besides, I thought you were a good communist, how can you be against the poor channels being propped up by the rich channels? Which is essentially what bundling does. Without bundling there would certainly be many channels that would no longer be financially viable and would be dropped. Why, the cable tv world would become NO RULES, ANARCHY! SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST!!! AHHHHH!

 

Exactly my point.  I don't watch either MSNBC or CNN - ever.  Or ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX.  Or ESPN.  Or a lot of others.  Why should I pay for them?  If those channels did go out of business, that would mean a lot of people would be out of work - and they would have to find jobs elsewhere.  Like, maybe Hulu. 

I know public broadcasting works on a survival of the most popular model.  The local station pays for programs to air.  What programs air depends on the market - the people who contribute to public radio during a particular broadcast.  So the count of call ins during a show is considered a measure of the popularity of that show.  And the station will be sure to renew their subscriptions to the most popular shows.

That is the argument I have heard before - the unpopular channels could not survive.  But I don't know why they couldn't go internet only.  Granted, paid subscriptions are not popular on the internet, but I have also heard of popular websites picking up lots of money via advertising.  So, why the hell not?  Why are we having to pay for cable anyway?  Why are we hanging on to this dinosaur technology?  Dump it.  Go online.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

cj wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Considering all the repetition of channels both on cable and dish, plus buying tons of channels you don't give a rats ass about just to get one, it is not worth it to me. If I am that desperate to want to watch a game, I can go to a bar with all the games.

 

That's my problem with cable TV - I want to watch maybe 4 or 5 channels, some of which are not on basic cable.  Cafe style is what I want, pick the channels you like and only pay for them - but that is against the law. 

 

As long as our current climate of corporate greed is about maximizing profits, instead of a healthy economy which should be based on customer service, the fact that I have 200 channels on my basic, which is over priced no matter what, the idiots who dream up these "bundles" don't understand that if they make it about us, instead of figuring out how to pick our pockets, they would probably make more money.

 

Without bundling MSNBC and CNN probably wouldn't exist anymore.

Also, you would probably find that a cable company offering ala carte pricing would charge much higher rates for popular channels, while unpopular channels would be extremely cheap. No doubt the NFL network would be one of the most expensive channels, which by the time you pay for that and your local channels you would probably be paying basic cable pricing anyway. The only people who would really benefit would be people who solely watch unpopular channels.

Besides, I thought you were a good communist, how can you be against the poor channels being propped up by the rich channels? Which is essentially what bundling does. Without bundling there would certainly be many channels that would no longer be financially viable and would be dropped. Why, the cable tv world would become NO RULES, ANARCHY! SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST!!! AHHHHH!

 

 

NFL does it too. Crappy teams get subsidized by the owners of the others and they all share in the profits of of the entire league. So socialism is good for the private sector but never for government?

Cable companies and dish companies create these bundles as a monopoly, breaking up those monopolies would create the competition for those cheaper channels. Bundling isn't designed to keep things cheap, it is a marketing ploy to maximize profits.

You still don't get it. MONOPOLIES and abuse of power. Those things can occur BOTH in government and in the privite sector because BOTH are human endeavors. You still stupidly even after the crash caused by abuse of money, that the private sector can never go off the rails. As long as there are humans humans will find ways to abuse anything they control. What keeps economies healthy is oversight both of the government, and business. An economy needs an open market, both you and I agree on that. Inequity has to happen to a degree to motivate people. But you still don't get that it cannot be ALL RICH or ALL POOR. And the more people in the totality of that society don't have to chose between food and health, or food and shelter, the less dependent they have to be on government.

The cost of living, cost of health care, and the pay gap are way out of wack and unless you address that things will only get worse.

 


 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4435
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:NFL does it

Brian37 wrote:

NFL does it too. Crappy teams get subsidized by the owners of the others and they all share in the profits of of the entire league. So socialism is good for the private sector but never for government?

I have absolutely no problem with communism as long as it isn't enforced using violence. If you wish to set up a commune on property you own, more power to you. If you are going to take a gun to my head and take my stuff to fund your commune I have a problem with that. There is absolutely nothing in current law that prevents you from running a business under communist principles, so why do all leftists insist that everyone else has to run companies the same way? Or that communism must be implemented at the federal level? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Cable companies and dish companies create these bundles as a monopoly, breaking up those monopolies would create the competition for those cheaper channels. Bundling isn't designed to keep things cheap, it is a marketing ploy to maximize profits.

If there is more than one it is by definition not a monopoly. Even in cities with multiple cable companies everything is sold as bundles. Why? Because it is cheaper for the cable companies, it is cheaper for the satellite companies, which means it is cheaper for you. Look at the channels which are not sold as bundles. HBO/Showtime/Starz/Cinemax I believe the going rate is $15/month or so.

The problem is that most people wouldn't pay that kind of cash for most channels and if you got 5 or 6 channels you would probably be paying around $50 a month anyway. While the small channels would be run out of business because they either charge so little they are not making money or they can't attract enough viewers especially after losing out on advertising revenue from all the casual occasional viewers who are channel surfing. Most likely, the customer sitting with their handful of custom channels will look at satellite and realize that for maybe and extra dollar or two a month they can have all their custom channels plus a couple hundred extras and switch. People leave cable and go elsewhere, forcing cable companies to raise rates to remain profitable, causing more people to leave... bad business idea, which no doubt is why no one has done it.

 

Brian37 wrote:

You still don't get it. MONOPOLIES and abuse of power. Those things can occur BOTH in government and in the privite sector because BOTH are human endeavors. You still stupidly even after the crash caused by abuse of money, that the private sector can never go off the rails. As long as there are humans humans will find ways to abuse anything they control. What keeps economies healthy is oversight both of the government, and business. An economy needs an open market, both you and I agree on that. Inequity has to happen to a degree to motivate people. But you still don't get that it cannot be ALL RICH or ALL POOR. And the more people in the totality of that society don't have to chose between food and health, or food and shelter, the less dependent they have to be on government.

Do you understand what the word monopoly means? If you think you have such a brilliant and popular idea that will attract so many people and be so profitable for a cable company, perhaps you ought to get into the business. The people who do it for a living believe that it would be neither cheaper, more profitable, or popular. I am inclined to believe them. But if you think they are wrong, the only thing stopping you from starting a new cable company is you.

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

NFL does it too. Crappy teams get subsidized by the owners of the others and they all share in the profits of of the entire league. So socialism is good for the private sector but never for government?

I have absolutely no problem with communism as long as it isn't enforced using violence. If you wish to set up a commune on property you own, more power to you. If you are going to take a gun to my head and take my stuff to fund your commune I have a problem with that. There is absolutely nothing in current law that prevents you from running a business under communist principles, so why do all leftists insist that everyone else has to run companies the same way? Or that communism must be implemented at the federal level? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Cable companies and dish companies create these bundles as a monopoly, breaking up those monopolies would create the competition for those cheaper channels. Bundling isn't designed to keep things cheap, it is a marketing ploy to maximize profits.

If there is more than one it is by definition not a monopoly. Even in cities with multiple cable companies everything is sold as bundles. Why? Because it is cheaper for the cable companies, it is cheaper for the satellite companies, which means it is cheaper for you. Look at the channels which are not sold as bundles. HBO/Showtime/Starz/Cinemax I believe the going rate is $15/month or so.

The problem is that most people wouldn't pay that kind of cash for most channels and if you got 5 or 6 channels you would probably be paying around $50 a month anyway. While the small channels would be run out of business because they either charge so little they are not making money or they can't attract enough viewers especially after losing out on advertising revenue from all the casual occasional viewers who are channel surfing. Most likely, the customer sitting with their handful of custom channels will look at satellite and realize that for maybe and extra dollar or two a month they can have all their custom channels plus a couple hundred extras and switch. People leave cable and go elsewhere, forcing cable companies to raise rates to remain profitable, causing more people to leave... bad business idea, which no doubt is why no one has done it.

 

Brian37 wrote:

You still don't get it. MONOPOLIES and abuse of power. Those things can occur BOTH in government and in the privite sector because BOTH are human endeavors. You still stupidly even after the crash caused by abuse of money, that the private sector can never go off the rails. As long as there are humans humans will find ways to abuse anything they control. What keeps economies healthy is oversight both of the government, and business. An economy needs an open market, both you and I agree on that. Inequity has to happen to a degree to motivate people. But you still don't get that it cannot be ALL RICH or ALL POOR. And the more people in the totality of that society don't have to chose between food and health, or food and shelter, the less dependent they have to be on government.

Do you understand what the word monopoly means? If you think you have such a brilliant and popular idea that will attract so many people and be so profitable for a cable company, perhaps you ought to get into the business. The people who do it for a living believe that it would be neither cheaper, more profitable, or popular. I am inclined to believe them. But if you think they are wrong, the only thing stopping you from starting a new cable company is you.

Yes you believe anyone in a suit, "They're  rich so they must automatically  be moral".

Quote:
But if you think they are wrong, the only thing stopping you from starting a new cable company is you.

What is it with your childish fixation of projecting your personal desires on others?

MATH jackass, not desires, not hard work vs laziness, but MATH are why most people work for someone else.

Otherwise if we all owned cable companies no one would do the work.

Just like there are only several hundred player positions in the NFL, and millions of college players and millions of pee wee league players hoping to get there.

IF I owned any business I would certainly not run it with your bullshit mindset that those below me deserve to be treated like numbers on a page or treat them like criminals if they don't have the same desires as I do.

Again you think you did it all by yourself, fine, then fire all your employees right now and do everything by yourself.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4435
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Yes you

Brian37 wrote:

Yes you believe anyone in a suit, "They're  rich so they must automatically  be moral".

What does morality have anything to do with the topic of bundling cable? Are you saying that cable companies have some moral obligation to offer ala carte pricing?

 

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
But if you think they are wrong, the only thing stopping you from starting a new cable company is you.

What is it with your childish fixation of projecting your personal desires on others?

MATH jackass, not desires, not hard work vs laziness, but MATH are why most people work for someone else.

Otherwise if we all owned cable companies no one would do the work.

Just like there are only several hundred player positions in the NFL, and millions of college players and millions of pee wee league players hoping to get there.

I have no personal desire to run a cable company. I am convinced that they are being ran well enough that there is no huge opportunity to profit. You are the one who apparently thinks they are being ran poorly and that you could do a better job. If you can, then maybe you should. I don't think I could do a significantly better job, so I don't. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

IF I owned any business I would certainly not run it with your bullshit mindset that those below me deserve to be treated like numbers on a page or treat them like criminals if they don't have the same desires as I do.

Again you think you did it all by yourself, fine, then fire all your employees right now and do everything by yourself.

If you ran a business it would no doubt be bankrupt within a few years and all of your employees would be sitting on unemployment. But, for the short time they are employed, I am sure it would be the time of their lives. 

Where did I ever claim I did anything by myself? I have claimed the opposite on here many times as I freely admit I often avoid doing work myself. I am lazy. All I do is wisely choose which people to invest in and which are a waste of money. Someone telling me that there is a huge market of people that would flock to a cable company offering ala carte services strikes me as someone I shouldn't waste money on. I do not think such a company could offer its services cheaply enough to compete, let alone become a major player in the market. 

 

And just to put some reality in the picture, I did some quick research on how much profit evil cable companies make. 

Comcast, the largest cable company in the country, brought in $9.897 billion in cable revenue from which they made approximately $788 million profit during the 2nd quarter. They have 50.521 million customers making an average bill of $65.30 a month. (9,897/50.521=195.898/3 (3 months in a quarter)= $65.299 per customer per month.) Their average profit per customer is 788/50.521=  $15.597/3  = $5.20 per customer per month. That means if you are a Comcast customer about 8% of whatever your bill is constitutes the profit. Obviously, there is some variance since some products are more profitable than others.

http://www.cmcsk.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=697141

Time Warner Cable shows similar numbers.

$5.404 billion in revenue, $466 million in profit, 15.293 million customers, for an average monthly bill of $117.79 and average monthly profit of $10.16. (8.6% profit) 

http://ir.timewarnercable.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=207717&p=quarterlyEarnings

 

Is it likely that cable companies will make less than 8% profit if they offered television ala carte? No. Rates will be set at whatever it takes to make that 8%ish profit because for someone to go through the risk of investing in building the infrastructure necessary to deliver cable services, they expect to see a decent return on their investment. And I really don't think 8% is that unreasonable from the customers perspective. You are not being "screwed" by some secret cloak and dagger maneuver to "force" you to pay for a bunch of tv channels you don't want to pad their evil pockets. Cable companies offer their services in bundles because it makes sense to disperse the costs of popular channels and allow people to have a large selection where you might watch some random channel once a month that you wouldn't pay for individually. 

The same reason most restaurants, amusement parks, museums, hotels etc. often offer their services as bundles and it is generally cheaper. Think of how absurd it would be to go to a buffet and bitch about all the food you are paying for that you are never going to eat, that is essentially what you are doing. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:And just

Beyond Saving wrote:

And just to put some reality in the picture, I did some quick research on how much profit evil cable companies make. 

Comcast, the largest cable company in the country, brought in $9.897 billion in cable revenue from which they made approximately $788 million profit during the 2nd quarter. They have 50.521 million customers making an average bill of $65.30 a month. (9,897/50.521=195.898/3 (3 months in a quarter)= $65.299 per customer per month.) Their average profit per customer is 788/50.521=  $15.597/3  = $5.20 per customer per month. That means if you are a Comcast customer about 8% of whatever your bill is constitutes the profit. Obviously, there is some variance since some products are more profitable than others.

http://www.cmcsk.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=697141

Time Warner Cable shows similar numbers.

$5.404 billion in revenue, $466 million in profit, 15.293 million customers, for an average monthly bill of $117.79 and average monthly profit of $10.16. (8.6% profit) 

http://ir.timewarnercable.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=207717&p=quarterlyEarnings

 

Is it likely that cable companies will make less than 8% profit if they offered television ala carte? No. Rates will be set at whatever it takes to make that 8%ish profit because for someone to go through the risk of investing in building the infrastructure necessary to deliver cable services, they expect to see a decent return on their investment. And I really don't think 8% is that unreasonable from the customers perspective. You are not being "screwed" by some secret cloak and dagger maneuver to "force" you to pay for a bunch of tv channels you don't want to pad their evil pockets. Cable companies offer their services in bundles because it makes sense to disperse the costs of popular channels and allow people to have a large selection where you might watch some random channel once a month that you wouldn't pay for individually. 

The same reason most restaurants, amusement parks, museums, hotels etc. often offer their services as bundles and it is generally cheaper. Think of how absurd it would be to go to a buffet and bitch about all the food you are paying for that you are never going to eat, that is essentially what you are doing. 

 

The only cable company in the city of Portland (~600,000 residents in the metro area) is Comcast.  For ~$40 a month for the very basic cable, I get a choice of channels, of which maybe I would watch 3 - occasionally.  The other option is DirectTV for about the same amount of money for about the same cost and selections.  It isn't worth it to me.  I don't own a TV set any more.  For $4.99 a month, I can belong to Netflix and see a lot of movies streamed online and I get one DVD mailed to me a month that I can watch on my PC. 

I am not particularly impressed with the cable companies.  They will have to change their business model or go out of business.  I'll bet people who were raised with the internet will not be willing to pay for entertainment they can get online for free.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4435
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:The only cable

cj wrote:

The only cable company in the city of Portland (~600,000 residents in the metro area) is Comcast.  For ~$40 a month for the very basic cable, I get a choice of channels, of which maybe I would watch 3 - occasionally.  The other option is DirectTV for about the same amount of money for about the same cost and selections.  It isn't worth it to me.  I don't own a TV set any more.  For $4.99 a month, I can belong to Netflix and see a lot of movies streamed online and I get one DVD mailed to me a month that I can watch on my PC. 

I am not particularly impressed with the cable companies.  They will have to change their business model or go out of business.  I'll bet people who were raised with the internet will not be willing to pay for entertainment they can get online for free.

Agreed, the internet certainly has many advantages over traditional cable and is now capable of matching it in picture quality. It will be sometime before the internet is able to compete with providing new material, most internet tv shows are very low budget, so for the time being cable will have an advantage with people who don't want to wait a year for the series to be on Netflix. One thing TimeWarner has done is focus on improving its internet broadband, whether that will be enough to replace the tv customers it has been losing remains to be seen. It just goes to show that cable companies are not a monopoly, you have other options. 

If I owned any cable stocks I would be worried about Google Fiber which for a mere $300 installation will offer internet service for free for 7 years, plus offering tv packages. Of course, Google is clearly headed towards an anti trust lawsuit because the one thing the government can't stomach is a company that gives stuff away for free, its "anti-competitive" and "unfair", only the government is allowed to give stuff away for free.  

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson